MAINLY ON POLITICS

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 80, 1 October 1924, Page 4

MAINLY ON POLITICS

The Speaker last night ruled out of order amendments which were intended to restrict tax reductions to lower incomes and lower land values. The House of Representatives therefore was unable to say whether it approved wholly the Government proposals or whether it desired them to be changed. It was unable to do as much as a Committee of the House had done previously. The choice before members was therefore acceptance or rejection. In these circumstances a- substantial majority, including some Liberals, chose acceptance. We believe that they were right in so doing, though it is arguable whether the benefit derived by the small landowner justifies the substantial remission of taxation given «to the bigger man. The mortgage exemption from land tax was not dealt with last night, though it was debated. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Education, who defended the, new proposal, met the objection which we raised and which has been advanced by Mr. Sidey: that the exemption is against the principle of land-taxation and is a step'towards the abolition of the tax. This proposal, however, will be finally dealt with when the Land and Income Tax Amendment Bill is before the" House.

On the income taxation proposals members, with a few exceptions, failed to submit constructive criticism. Liberal and Labour and Keform vied with each other in proclaiming solicitude for the welfare of the small man, the small farmer, or the Civil servant. Labour, indeed, declared that there should be no reduction of taxation until the Civil Service wage was restored to the 1914 purchasing power. But why single out the Civil Service? Why not make the same stipulation for everybody? Surely Labour does not hold that the Civil Service should be a privileged sections whose share of the war burden should be borne by the rest of the community? If not, and if everyone is to have the 1914 purchasing power, how is'it to be done? Equally vain was the Liberal sympathy with overtaxed companies, in face of the Liberal amendment which would have deprived the companies of any hope of relief. We agree that there is need for a distinction between companies and individuals in levying taxation, but, until the law is altered, that distinction cannot be made. In the meantime it is the lesser evil to allow a few individuals to share the greater benefit in order that relief may be given to many companies and through the companies to the public. It is not right, however, that this makeshift method Bhould continue, and Parliament should lose no time in preparing for an altered incidence which will be more equitable than the present system.